gingerbread
Posts: 2994
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
quote:
ORIGINAL: gingerbread
The die mod to bombardment rolls is being applied in situation that perhaps was not intended, e.g say (this is Barbarossa) the Tac in E Poland is fired on by flak but survives and retreats to Kiev where it is subsequently fired on by flak again. It is then "fired upon" and will be penalized - the flak recieves +3.
Strikes me as fine. Not really intended per se, but a reasonable course of events. One could argue in tha chaos of retreat after retreat the planes have a harder time beating a retreat the second time without getting shot down in the process.
My point is that the mods are stacked. A +/-1 to the DF, for what ever the reason, will in addition to that also yield a +/- 3 to the die roll.
If I recall, you introduced it to penalize unsuplied units (good idea!) but you caught more than those with the implementation you made, for instance 1st winter germans.
quote:
ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
quote:
ORIGINAL: gingerbread
Something should be done to targeting! Panzers target Art or Flak (if no enemy Arm is present) when the chances of taking the area would be better if they targeted Inf. I suggest that unless the probability of winning is .95+ with standard targeting , panzers should shift to a new type of "area control targeting", i.e. Inf, and this could be indicated in the battle mouse over, just like combined arms is.
I'd say that's just part of the uncertainty of war.
Well, I assume that you have read the code that handles targeting. Having played quite a lot, I have a hunch that Arm will favor Art or AA as targets if there are no enemy Arm and all enemy Inf is targeted by friendlies.
In any case, I will make a more elaborate proposal:
If the attacker has both Arm and Inf/Mil/Para (IMP) in a battle, the type of unit that was the first to enter the enemy area influences targeting - in the first is an IMP, battle is for control (think D-Day - use Paras to modify the coastal artillery); if Arm is moved first, the battle is destructive i.e. arm will favour Art/AA as per my "hunch".
quote:
ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
quote:
ORIGINAL: gingerbread
I suggest that pop should be recovered from disbanded units if disbanded in an area of the same nationality.
Yes, this has been brought up before and I tend to agree. But maybe only 1/2 of the pop, just to discourage gameyness.
The free Soviet Mil could be made as a separate nationality (Workers Nation or something) so that they get used in the front and not tucked away somewhere safe. If so, the full 2 pop should be fine.
quote:
ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
quote:
ORIGINAL: gingerbread
Areas adjacent to a sea zone should not modify transport capacity unless it belongs to an active nation, i.e. at war in the political window. As it is now, german transports in the Southern Baltic Sea are affected by the still neutral Baltic States.
I'd have to play around with it to see what you mean. Do you mean that a Neutral region is treated as a hostile region? If so, I'd agree it should change although I wouldn't be in a rush to do it.
Here I made myself unclear: The area of the Baltic states while a neutral state does not but when annexed by the Sovjets it does even when there is yet no war.
To see what I mean, start a '39 game, move a Trans into Baltic Sea - it then has 25 pts, take Poland (up to 35 pts), run the turn and due to that the Baltic States are then Soviet, it's down to 25 again in Fall '39.
< Message edited by gingerbread -- 3/16/2009 8:48:23 PM >
|
Printable Version
1.040 Public Beta feedback - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread